The Glade 4.0

Mathematically speaking, only Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak was statistically improbable. Statisticians have written books and papers and studies on these things for decades.

_________________

interesting..

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

I'm sure you do. However, from what you've said, it sounds like it's entirely too easy to end up on your **** list or piss you off. Not only that, but even with people like that treating them with disrespect doesn't usually improve the situation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

All of this is assuming a fair, 2-sided coin:

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

See, that's something you do have me on. You're right. At the current point in my life, it is way entirely too easy to end up on my sh*t list.

My apologies. It's nothing personal, really.

It's a defense mechanism, and admittedly far from the best way to handle things.

For now, though, it's exactly what I want.

Sometimes you just have to do what you gotta do and stand up for what you believe in, no matter what. I will work on my tolerance for people's stupidity, but it's something that is on the backburner right now.




I agree. It usually isn't my intention to improve most of those types of situations, because I'm not looking for the approval of [most] others.


For instance, most of my coworkers. Well, ex-coworkers. If I acted polite to them, I wouldn't be able to tolerate myself anymore than I am able to tolerate their fake asses. Also, if a select few hated ones started respecting me, I'd probably gag.

Generally I respect most people in real life. However, most of the f*cking idiots I just had the displeasure of working with for the past 4 years made me realize that sometimes, just sometimes, if you're not a bad motherf*cker, you're going to get lied to, and you're going to get taken advantage of.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

tiger blood

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

Are you like, on a Charlie Sheen coke-binge or having a bi-polar manic episode or something? Just asking.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Why choose?

_________________

Neither. I just like the Charlie Sheen hype and I think it's funny.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

So anyways... are you going to look for a new job?

Lex, come on. Do you read posts anymore?

Calculating the probability of at least one run of at least 7 tails in 100 trials turns out to be a very non-trivial problem to solve. Initially, I thought:

Well, there are 94 different positions for a possible 7-coin streak of tails (100-7+1). Each of these has a probability of 1-0.5^7 = 0.9921875 of not being a streak of tails. Thus the probability that none of the candidate streak locations is a streak is 0.9921875^94 = 0.4784236. Therefore the odds of at least one streak of 7 or more tails is the inverse, 0.5215764 = ~52.16%

But this is wrong. The streak positions overlap one another, which means that a streak in position 1 is not mutually exclusive with a streak in position 2. Treating these as independent probabilities is wrong. The above answer significantly overestimates the odds when the probability of tails (or failure, or whatever you're measuring) is more than miniscule.

A truly exact, analytic answer would require a nasty mess of nested series that is quite difficult to calculate for any non-trivially small set without writing a program to do it for you:

Q: What’s the chance of getting a run of K or more successes (heads) in a row in N Bernoulli trials (coin flips)? Why use approximations when the exact answer is known?

There's a bit of a shortcut for the special case where N (100 in our example) is significantly larger than K (7 in our example). Calculate E = Nqp^K, where P is the probability of tails, and q is the probability of heads: E = 100*0.5*0.5^7 = 0.390625. = ~39%

Note that this is larger than the "low-ball" estimation I gave earlier based on roughly 14 independent streak locations (~10.4%), but lower than the high-ball estimation I gave above (52%) based on 97 overlapping streak positions. This estimation fails badly when N is similar in magnitude to P, though.

Edit: whoops, my low-ball estimation above was based on the probability of a streak of either heads or tails, not just tails. A low-ball figure for at least on streak of 7 or more tails would be half of the 20% figure. More accurately, about 10.4% = 1 - (1-0.5^7)^14.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Fair enough. My suggestion would be to begin by working on the idea that what you're tolerating is stupidity. You're far, FAR from the only person that does this, but not all disagreements are because the other person is being stupid.



I'm afraid I just don't understand what you're talking about. There are plenty of ways to avoid getting lied to and taken advantage of without being a "bad ****" (I'm not sure what you mean by that, either, I really hope you don't mean physically threatening. I must say, I find it.. offputting when people claim to be a bad **** or anything like that, but NM)

I'm also really not able to understand how it could diminish your own self-respect to treat people you don't like with respect or politeness, or why you would actively reject the respect of others. What sort of message do you suppose this sends to people you do want to respect you? You presumably have family members you love and care about? What would they think of your behavior?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution

You are correct that you would have to double the probability I posted earlier in the thread. You are further correct that a string of 100 flips contains 94 7-string trials. That the streaks are not mutually exclusive does not matter. Trial #1 is flips 1-7, while trial #2 is flips 2-8. If you have a sting of 8 heads from 1-8, this shows up in the binomial distribution as two consecutive "successes" on a streak of 7.

There is a slight wrinkle. You can not use a binomial coefficient for most events. Certain strings like SFS can not occur. You would instead have to have SFFFFFFS. A failure would be introduced by having a string of heads interrupted by tails. Unfortunately, you would require a bare minimum of six additional consecutive tails to introduce your next success. In other words, two successful trials can be separated by no fewer than six fails.

Were we interested in finding the possibility of a particular number of successes, we would have to account for all of the aforementioned ways to achieve our desired number of successes that can not actually occur. SFFS is impossible, and all iterations where that appears must be removed from the formula. There are many ways that three successful trials could occur, but some of them are impossible given the way we are mapping 100 flips to 94 trials.

Fortunately, we don't care. We are only interested in the special case where 0 successes occur. There is only one way that can happen - 94 failures in a row. Unlike two successes separated by a single failure, 94 consecutive failures is not an impossible event. We can use a binomial distribution to find the special case of 0 successes. This number can be subtracted from 1 to find the probability of x>0 successes. If we want 1 success, the binomial distribution still holds. There are exactly 94 ways to generate 1 success.

At 2 successes, we have a problem. There are certain ways to generate 2 successes our original domain of 100 coin flips can not map to. The validity of the binomial distribution is once again restored at the high end, as there is only one way to achieve 94 successes in 94 trials.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I thought maybe he changed his mind.

Something else to consider is that you're looking at an event that follows a geometric distribution if you're just looking for the probability that success occurs on any given trial after a string of repeated failures. (Which is not exactly what Khross asked, but is still helpful).

From that, we find that we expect to see a successful streak of 7 heads or tails on the 64th trial. (Flip #70). The standard deviation is just over 63 trials (69 flips). So it's certainly plausible that we will run the experiment and not receive any string of 7 in a row. A binomial distribution yields a probability of close to 1/4 for 0 successes, which jives with the my expectation being that I see 7 consecutive same-side facings somewhere between flips 7 and 139.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

That's understandable, as you didn't work with the people I worked with

...and no I don't actually go around acting like a "bad motherf*cker" or anything. I do have the wallet, though.




I'm not sure if I'll get a job or not. I'm hoping I won't have to, but I'm not opposed to finding something part time to help pad my trading account initially--but, with the way things are going, I might not need to. Also, the time off will give me time to work on my other business ideas.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

No I didn't, but I find it hard to believe you worked with a group of people that were unique in their stupidity.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're probably right. I generally think at least 85% of people are dumb, but at this place it was more like 95%. Slightly higher concentration.

Unfortunately, without giving away too much detail about certain aspects of the business and my employment and specific relationships between specific people, I can't rightly defend my position any further on this forum beyond saying that they weren't just stupid, they were f*cking stupid.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

I've been having to deal with people at work asking for code changes to things I know are correct, and they want me to spend hours to cater to their overly complex style. It's very frustrating.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

I thought this was going to be about Star Wars.

The opposite of value investing is growth investing. The greater fool theory is the opposite of being competent.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

That's debatable.

Different. Yes. Opposite? No. Maybe. Does it matter? Nope.




The point is there doesn't have to be any real value for price of an equity to move up or down. You can take advantage of price swings due to hype and manipulation and promotion.


It doesn't matter if what I buy is completely worthless if someone is going to buy it from me for a higher price.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

Are you investing solely in penny stocks traded on the pink sheets, and manipulating their value by posting positive outlooks to various boards associated with them?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20